Back
2001 Supreme(All) 50
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. S. Sinha and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.
SARNAM SINGH - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY REGISTRAR, CO-OP.SOCIETIES, JHANSI - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 10128 Of 1988
Decided On : 01/17/2001
M.P.Gupta, S.S.Nigam, V.P.Pathak
Non-compliance with a court order may result in dismissal of the petition and the vacating of any interim orders.
Headnote:
Default - Non-compliance with Court Order - Dismissal of Petition
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner failed to comply with a court order dated 19th May, 1988, to serve respondents personally and file an affidavit of service within six weeks.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that despite the lapse of more than twelve years, the petitioner had not complied with the court order. The petitioner was enjoying the interim order without complying with the court's directive.
Issues: Non-compliance with court order, entitlement to discretionary relief
Ratio Decidendi: A litigant who does not comply with a court order is not entitled to discretionary relief from the court.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed for default in complying with the court order dated 19th May, 1988, and the interim order dated 19th May, 1988 was vacated.
( 1 ) AS long back as on 19th May. 1988, a Division Bench of this Court directed that in addition to normal mode of service, the petitioner shall serve respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 personally outside court within three weeks, and file affidavit of service within six weeks. Despite lapse of interminable period of more than twelve years, the petitioner has not bothered to comply the said order of the Court dated 19th May, 1988. Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam, who is present on behalf of the petitioner, has not been able to point out any material on record indicating compliance of the order of the Court dated 19th May, 1988.
( 2 ) ALTHOUGH Sri M. P. Gupta has put in appearance for respondent No. 3, yet respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not been served and are unrepresented.
( 3 ) WHILE directing the petitioner to take steps for service upon the respondents as aforesaid, the court also granted interim order staying operation of the impugned order which is still operative and the petitioner has been enjoying the same for all these years without complying the order of the Court. A litigant who does not bother to comply the order of the Court is not entitled to any discretionary relief from it.
( 4 ) UNDER the circumstances, the petition is dismissed for default in complying the order of the court dated 19th May, 1988. The interim order dated 19th May, 1988 shall stand vacated.
.
